WUWT readers may recall that Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog discovery of UNEP’s use of a Wikipedia “hockey Stick” graphic by “Hanno”, was the subject of last week’s blog postings.
The Yamal data hockey stick controversy overshadowed it, and much of the focus has been there recently.
The discovery of a Wikipedia graphic in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium must have been embarrassing as it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into “official” publications.
In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell. The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.
And then there’s the problem of the citation as “Hanno 2009” who (up until this story broke) was an anonymous Wikipedia contributor.
Yet UNEP cited the graph as if it was a published and peer reviewed work as “Hanno 2009″.
Here’s my screencap of the page from the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium report from last week
In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell.
The hockey stick, based on tree ring proxies has met an inconveniently timed death it seems.
It appears now that somebody at the United Nations must have gotten the message from blogland, becuase there has been a change in the graphics on page 5.
Below is page 5 as it appears in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium today:
It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hockey stick, but close enough.
You can see the GISS graph from the GISTEMP web page right here, oddly the UN used the 2005 version (citing Hansen et al 2005) rather than the 2009 version of the graph, seen below. Might it be that pesky downturn at the end of the graph? Or maybe they are just Google challenged?
It sure would be nice if such publications could display animated GIFS, for example this one showing two different vintages of GISS data:
Maybe climate blogs can convince the UN to change their graph yet again.
Thanks to sharp eyed WUWT reader Lawrie (of Sydney Australia) for pointing out the change made to the UNEP document.
Sponsored IT training links:
Testking offers up to date LX0-102 exam dumps and HP0-J27 practice test with 100% success guarantee for HP0-S25 exams.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“It sure would be nice if such publications could display animated GIFS, for example this one showing two different vintages of GISS data”
That would be Harry Potter material, for dead-tree journals!
I think that the Interbebby thingy has surpassed even Harry……
For comparison with the new UN graph:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/aa_yoy_diff_sq.png
The real fun will start, when McIntyre digs into raw data of modern HadCRUT dataset. Should not be raw data for GISTEM and HadCRUT + methodology available just as tree ring proxies?
This is a shame.
The hockey stick, already an established cultural icon, is now entering folklore:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/warming_tanked/#commentsmore
But why stop at 1000 years?
There’s plenty more tidying up for ‘the team’ to get on with:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/dnc49xz_66cjkz54fh_b.png
It’s silently gone. Those who were able to separate justified results from nonsense aren’t credited with their contributions. But thank God, at least one wrong graph is gone.
Thousands of them are still waiting. And when thousands of wrong graphs are also removed, it will still not be the end of the movement because the movement is not really about any graphs, neither correct nor fake ones.
Very typical. IPCC represents THE scientific concensus – except for the intrumental temperature graph. IPCC uses CRU, but most AGW-faithful (including Gore) prefer GISS, showing 2005 as the warmest year instead of 1998. And yes, the graph always stops at the peak, ignoring the politically incorrect downturn.
As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.
The IPCC and Gore should give back their peace prize.
oakwood (00:00:33) : As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.
hear hear!
Why don’t they show a graph of the last 1000 years? It would be really interesting to know what their view of the last millenium really is. And why don’t they show a graph of the last 250 years? Why not the last 5000 years? Or 20,000 years?
Obviously it is very important for them to select a convenient start date for their graphs.
Their case is extremely precarious just on that point alone.
Imagine how much would pass under the bridge if it wasn’t for the efforts of the likes of a certain A Watts and S McIntyre. Alarmists down-under frequently posit that a nobel prize awaits those who disprove the current consensus. By my reckoning both you guys are winners, several time over. KUTGW!
How refreshing! A little UN honesty, there is a long way to go, say to providing total objectivity and the conflicting evidence side by side in the their ‘compendiums’/ propaganda sheets.
oakwood (00:00:33) : “As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.”
I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact on AGW proponents and, in particular, politicians is absolutely zilch.
The timeline in the first two graphs is different. The first spans a 1,010 years and the other just 130 years.
The “Hanno” graph clearly shows that, except for the past 50 to 100 years, the temperatures are more or less stable. This is clearly in line with the IPCC message that CO2 has upset things and things are not “normal” today.
When we look at the 10,000 year history of temperatures, reconstructed from the very reliable GISP2 ice core data however, the current warm period seems very normal, though a little cooler than, most of the past 10,000 years.
Maybe you should post this graph also to put todays temperatures in context. (preferably if you can get a larger version of it)
“It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hickey stick, but close enough.”
I’m not really familiar with a “hickey stick”
The original Hanno graph was not peer reviewed. Can it be claimed that the GISS graph has been peer reviewed? It seems to me that both the GISS and HADCRU graphs have not gone through an independent review process of any kind. Has anybody done any replication of the graphs (I know the CRU data is top secret, or was before it was lost)?
“Chris Schoneveld (01:49:09) :
oakwood (00:00:33) : “As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.”
I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact on AGW proponents and, in particular, politicians is absolutely zilch.”
My centiments exactly. And I don’t see “voter power” working to correct this situation, only civil unrest.
Re: Richard (01:50:30) :
“When we look at the 10,000 year history of temperatures, reconstructed from the very reliable GISP2 ice core data however, the current warm period seems very normal, though a little cooler than, most of the past 10,000 years.”
At that station, maybe. How can this graph represent global temperature?
“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. He can go about his business. Move along.”
I echo MarcH. What people like McIntyre and Watts do is to inform people of the downright lies that are going on. I emailed D’Aleo at Icecap the other day to keep up the good work. Imagine what realclimate would get away with if it weren’t for these good people! I’ve managed to educate some people myself on what realclimate actually is and who is backing it.
They also altered the graph in the lower left, removing the Wikipedia credit to Rhode 2009.
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif is 404
At least it’s something although I suspect it is merely more slight of hand to avoid embarrassing claims against their report. Have they apologised for the apparent “error”, have they even acknowledged it, I think not.
As to consensus, slightly OT but related to the alleged “scientific consensus” & how 2,500 scientists cannot be wrong. I was putting somebody right a little while ago, & I pointed out that apart from some musings from ancient Greece, until the 16th C with Copernicus, & the 17th C with Galileo, the general scientific consensus of the IPCC equivalent world leading scientific authority (the Holy Roman Catholic Church), was that the Earth was flat & that the sun, stars & planets revolved around us. We now know this to be untrue. Up until the late 18th C & early to mid 19th C, the general scientific & medical consensus, was that blood letting was the order of the day in curing all manner of ailments, & that this blood letting ranged from applying leeches to various parts of the body, to cutting across main arteries, resulting in frequent deaths! We now know this to be untrue. Towards the end of the 19th C, Lord Kelvin (Britian’s leading scientist) pronounced that there was nothing left to discover in science any more, only greater & more accurate measurement. We now know this to be untrue. For almost 350 years, science was dominated by Newtonian physics, until a young smart alec German upstart scientist called Bert Onestone, announced his theory of relativity to great outcry & synicism & disbelief from the scientific consensus, turning Newtonian physics on its head & inside out. It was claimed he was wrong, we now know this theory to be true – probably! In the early 20th C, Alfred Wegener announced his theory of continental drift, evetually leading to plate tectonic theory later that century, he was ridiculed & insulted for his “ridculous” & “fanciful” opinions by the scientific consensus, & his theory dismissed. We now know this to be true! I think he got the point I was making about “scientific consensus” & its uttter meaningless relevance!
It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hickey stick, but close enough.
A hickey stick? 🙂 I’m getting a 404 http error for the blink graph.
I worked for the UN for about 16 months as a translator. Their pay was good (it amounted to about 10 times the average rate in my industry), and it was exempt from taxation!
Nevertheless, I quit in disgust. The language they use in the UN is inhumanly perverse; it’s not even “bureaucratic” — it’s something indescribable. And the people you have to work with… “corrupt” and “illiterate” don’t cut it. “Reptile scum of the Earth” would do better.
To expect any kind of factual truth to come out from the United Nations is as naive as reading some uncharted depths of integrity and nobility in Putin’s eyes. They understand only two things, money and power. What do they care about science that doesn’t pay under the table?
Chris Schoneveld 01:49:09:
“I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact….is absolutely zilch.”
Patience, Chris, it’s coming, it’s coming.